on the security council vote, this take from the financial times is kinda interesting:
Quote:
Bric abstentions point to bigger UN battle
By Harvey Morris at the United Nations
Published: March 18 2011 16:26 | Last updated: March 18 2011 16:26
If the western powers go to war with Muammer Gaddafi, it will be without the support of one of the key emerging components of the new global architecture – the Brics.
Brazil, Russia, India and China all abstained in Thursday’s UN Security Council vote to mandate military action against the Libyan regime.
Russia and China are permanent members of an institution that reflects the global power structure in the immediate aftermath of the second world war. Brazil and India, presently serving two-year terms, are seeking permanent seats on a reformed council that would more closely reflect the realities of the 21st century.
The Russians and Chinese take a consistent line against what they regard as interference in the internal affairs of UN member states. They could have vetoed resolution 1973 but that would have meant turning their backs on a direct appeal from traditional friends in the Arab League to impose a no-fly zone.
China’s foreign ministry said on Friday that Beijing did not use its veto because of the “concerns and stance of Arab countries and the African Union as well as the special situation in Libya”.
Reservations expressed by India and Brazil at the close of Thursday’s debate indicated an expanded council would strengthen the hand of the non-interventionists and weaken that of the west with its three permanent seats – the US, France and UK.
Manjeev Singh Puri, Indian ambassador, noted: “It is very important that there is full respect for sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Libya.”
“It was a clear signal to the international community that they will not be the west’s lapdogs,” said Carne Ross, who heads the New York-based Independent Diplomat consultancy. “And there was certainly an element of posturing for permanent seats.”
He doubted there was any active collusion among the Brics on how to vote but said council dynamics reflected an element of “follow my leader”. “If China and Russia had voted in favour, it’s very unlikely India and Brazil would have abstained.”
According to Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs: “That was the best solution for all Bric countries – not to disturb relations with the west, but to distance themselves from responsibility.”
Brazil, which is non-interventionist at heart, has long believed in the seductive power of its rainbow diplomacy, which it claims can open doors and broker peace deals that other countries cannot.
Brazil has a professional diplomatic corps that is long hardened in trade negotiations, but despite an extensive diplomatic network it remains a newcomer to global security concerns and lacks the foreign policy experience and think-tank framework of some of its Bric peers, particularly Russia.
Jorge Castaņeda, political scientist and former Mexican foreign minister, wrote in Foreign Affairs earlier this year: “It is the traditional powers in the west that will determine the international response to this [Middle East] crisis – not because they are favoured by global institutions, but because their word is backed by military and diplomatic weight. In contrast, the world's rising economies lack the ability – and the values – to project their power on the world stage.”
Thursday’s vote was a close-run thing. Germany, another aspirant to permanent membership, also abstained but that almost certainly had more to do with domestic resistance to the use of military force.
The outcome is unlikely to deter western leaders from paying at least lip service to an expansion of the security council.
President Barack Obama might well express US support for Brazil’s elevation to permanent status when he visits the country at the weekend. Western leaders, however, know that wrangling over the format for expansion, and indeed competition among rival aspirants, is likely to stymie reform for many years to come.
Additional reporting by Neil Buckley, John Paul Rathbone and Jamil Anderli
|
FT.com / Emerging Markets - Bric abstentions point to bigger UN battle
i don't get the whining:
o-poor-united-of-states!
we give and give and give and nobody appreciates us
ALAS!
fact is that the us imports oil from canada, mexico, saudi arabia and venezuela in that order. us policy about oil has been imperial from the outset--about controlling supplies politically rather than getting sweetheart deals economically. realpolitik. check out michael klare's book resource wars for a good (if a little outdated in 2011) history of the policy logic and how it developed.
libya could well be the first military action that's post-imperial for the united states---another step forward in the fading of empire. the refiguring of the security council is interesting in this regard.
it took a l o n g time for the administration to decide to back some kind of action at the international level, during which time a whole lot of people ended up dead in libya.
when there is an action, it will simply not be the case that the united states is manfully at the lead of it. the us will be part of a broader coalition. a lot of the hardware will come from france and england. they have a more direct economic stake (oil) in the outcome (oil).....this isn't to say the us won't do anything---but thanks to neo-conservative realpolitik and its surreal consequences, the us simply is not in a position to run this show. three wars at once is many.
i expect that what the new situation is will clarify in the next couple days. something is definitely about to happen.